equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[BoMac]

Originally Posted by INDY500

...Nickleback speaks for all Canadians.

Many things in this thread have made me sad, but none more than this. I think we can all agree that this sentence shall never be uttered again.

:shudder:

[phillyfan26]

Could it be? Could hatred of Nickelback be the one thing that could unite FYM under one cause? One thing everyone can agree on?

Originally Posted by diamond

I wouldn't let Adam Lambert babysit my children.

Originally Posted by diamond

I think it's ironic that some gays are equating birth to human excrement, but when imitating
straight sex as in sodomy, they're actually in excrement more often then not.

Oh, wait a minute. I don't want to ever agree with Diamond on anything. Seriously.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by diamond
I wouldn't let Adam Lambert babysit my children.

Yeah, I'm sure the Glambert is devastated.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

So why the condescending remark aimed at, in the States anyway, 85% of the population? The discovery Institute doesn't speak for "religious folk" anymore than Nickleback speaks for all Canadians.

Fair enough. I just feel that, if it were not for religion, we wouldnt be having this, and many other discussions on FYM. It can be a good force on a personal level, but I dont feel it should affect other people's lives on the scale that it does. Its no coincidence that in a country with such a high population of religious people, that you have many of the problems that you do (perhaps too much of a generalization, but I'll throw it out there for conversation sake).

But no matter what I say, you have no right....NO RIGHT!.....to bring up nickelback to a Canadian. Thats like bringing hitler up in conversation with an old German person

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

its no surprise that intellectual advancement would seem alien to the religious folk

Just a bit of browsing history would indicate how untrue this statement is...

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

, but I dont feel it should affect other people's lives on the scale that it does.

Just curious - are you a secular humanist?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

I love Hoosiers. Fantastic film. And, as my location mentions, I love Shooter's re-telling of his high school playing days.

"Five, four, three, two, one ... LET 'ER FLY! ... In and out ... uh, I was fouled."

C'mon! What about Shooter showing up drunk at the game?

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by AEON

C'mon! What about Shooter showing up drunk at the game?

Or Shooter running the picket fence at 'em.

[diamond]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

but didnt you see the yucky picture of two boys kissing?

My Way News - ABC's `Good Morning America' cancels Lambert

intolerant bigots!?

[corianderstem]

It wasn't just ZOMG BOYS KISSING, it was a big ol' combination of a) simulated blow-job; b) flipping off the camera at the end of the song; c) dragging a woman across the stage by her leg and d) yes, probably the kiss as well.

Oh, and maybe they don't want him because it was a rather shitty performance, all the on-stage LOOK AT ME I'M CREATING CONTROVERSY WHEEEEEE!!!!!! aside.

[melon]

Originally Posted by AEON

Nathan, they do not like this side of Barack Obama...

Idol worship (Reagan, Bush) may be a requirement of conservatism, but it isn't of modern liberalism.

[INDY500]

Philly will recognize this picture. The difference of course, other than the fact that Bowie and Ronson had talent, is they never attempted this on prime time network television. It's called standards.

[melon]

Originally Posted by diamond

My Way News - ABC's `Good Morning America' cancels Lambert

intolerant bigots!?

I'm sure you're of the school of thought that "bigotry" requires a distance of death, black and white photography, and some kind of funky costume worn at least 40 years ago.

I find it funny that the ideology that trumpeted around "absolute truth" for decades cannot grasp that it is possible for there to not only be an objective definition of "bigotry," but also that, if such an objective definition exists, then it stands to reason that it is possible for the majority of citizenry to violate said objective definition.

Not that any of this matters, because an "appeal to reason" is my mistake here when nothing you've written at all over the last few years has had any bearing in reality, let alone logic.

[phillyfan26]

Bowie also had a penchant for not wearing any pants.

[corianderstem]

The GaGa also appreciates appearing pantsless, too.

[melon]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Charmingly put.

Why not? Y'all have spent years reducing homosexuality to its most basest and inglorious functionality to invoke disgust. But I hate to break it you, it's not all sunshine and flowers and magic kittens everytime some dick fucks a pussy, you know.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by melon

it's not all sunshine and flowers and magic kittens everytime some dick fucks a pussy, you know.

How about dancing unicorns? Because I swear, this one time ....

[nathan1977]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

but it isn't parenting, nathan. just ask the parents who've adopted children. or do they not count?

As the father of two kids (actually three, if you count our miscarriage last year), I can say with authority that you're mistaken if you think parenting starts when children are "shit out" (your gracious words). The entire process of preparing for the arrival is preparing to become parents. And yes, when children arrive on the scene, you have become a parent. You don't grow into one. You are one -- a point President Obama clearly made. (Hell, you start becoming a parent when you get the EPT and you suddenly show up at Kids'R'Us to empty the store of every safe baby appliance imaginable, for a kid who has months and months yet to arrive.) So yes, I can safely say, birthing a child is the core process of becoming a parent -- the defining moment. The one we all point to. That day, everything changed. I know it did for me, and I'm willing to bet it did for just about every parent in this forum. I even remember Bono talking about how the day his first daughter was born, he understood why men would fight wars.

Sure, there are other, much harder, much more complicated ways to become parents. I have friends who have adopted, done IVF, etc. They are perfectly capable parents. But biologically speaking, the way we have evolved (or were created, depending on your particular cup of tea) is reproduction through the pairing of opposite-sex mates. Can you really so easily and casually discount the biological role that gender distinctiveness and determinism plays in conception?

And if human beings are social creatures, who learn sociologically, where do you think we learn gender roles from? Certainly from the village you espouse; but first and foremost, from our families. Everything we understand about male and female sexuality comes first from our parents; it only takes a cursory reading of Freud to get that. So don't you think that it might be kind of valuable for girls to learn femininity from their mothers, and masculinity from their fathers? Obama sure thinks so, and he quotes some pretty significant statistics to back him up. Kids need mothers and fathers in healthy marriages -- and boys, in particular, need fathers. I'm not sure what's so controversial about this particular point.

so, again, nathan, and hopefully for the last time, what can a male parent do that a female parent cannot do? and, to push it just a bit further, do you think that anyone parents in a vacuum? or do parents rely on other people as well -- aunts, uncles, grandparents, coaches, teachers, other parents, older siblings, etc.? does it not take a village?

Sure it takes a village. But it starts with a family. And I can say with some authority that fathers and mothers parent differently, and that fathers and mothers parent their sons and their daughters differently. My wife and I certainly do. There are innate characteristics to boys and girls that differ wildly, that require different needs. Again, is this really such a controversial point?

you've pointed to parenting as a justification against marriage equality

No, you did. I was sitting casually by, minding my own business, until you asked the question, "What can men do that women can't?" I pointed out two answers. You disagreed. That's your right. But you're the one who brought it up, dude.

being a parent is not a requirement to marriage.

Actually, most people I know these days wait to get married until they want to have kids. So while it's not a requirement, it's certainly an expectation. Always has been, too.

your thinking on this is uncharacteristically blinkered, nathan.

Really? Recognizing differences between the sexes, and conjecturing that maybe there's some value to those differences when it comes to core social structures? I mean, your average science textbook recognizes such differences in primates. You really want to jump down my throat about that?

and it's a sideshow (that i've indulged) from what this thread is about: marriage equality.

You're the one who said it, dude. Don't get mad when other people call you on it.

[melon]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

The entire process of preparing for the arrival is preparing to become parents. And yes, when children are shat out of their mother's vagina, you have become a parent. You don't grow into one. You are one -- a point President Obama clearly made. So yes, I can safely say, birthing a child is the core process of becoming a parent -- the first and primary moment.

Let it be known then that adoptive parents are really not "parents" at all. Too bad for you, Joseph!



I guess that begs the question...

Can couples whose children are delivered via C-section be called "parents" too since their children have not been anointed by vagina?

Do adopted children have souls?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Just curious - are you a secular humanist?

I'm sure this is some sort of awesome Ackbarian trap, but I'll bite. I dont classify myself as any particular denomination. I'm sure some of my reasoning falls into the secular humanist realm, but I prefer to just think of myself as an individual who bases his actions on fairness to others with a deep sense of empathy. I dont shoehorn my actions into what I think would fit into the framework of my particular 'denomination'. I'll also add that I'm not athiest, but rather agnostic (and not even a hardline teapot agnostic).